UC-NRLF 


$C    23M    4D3 


GIFT  OF 


\^,^.      \<JLJ^)^. 


ir 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS 

IN 

CLASSICAL   PHILOLOGY 

Vol.  2,  No.  7,  pp.  151-164  June  28,  191 1 


THE   SEPARATION  OF  THE  ATTRIBUTIVE 

ADJECTIVE  FROM  ITS  SUBSTANTIVE 

IN  PLAUTUS 


BY 

WINTHROP  L.  KEEP 


BERKELEY 
THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


UNIVEESITY  OP  OALITOENIA  PUBLICATIONS, 

Note.— The  University  of  California  Publications  are  offered  in  exchange  for  the  publi- 
cations of  learned  societies  and  institutions,  universities,  and  libraries.  Complete  lists  of 
all  the  publications  of  the  University  will  be  sent  upon  request.  For  sample  copies,  lists 
of  publications  or  other  information,  address  the  MANAGER  OF  THE  UNIVEESITY 
PEESS,  BEEKELEY,  CALIFORNIA,  U.  S.  A.  All  matter  sent  in  exchange  should  be 
addressed  to  THE  EXCHANGE  DEPARTMENT,  UNIVERSITY  LTBRAEY.  BEBKELEY. 
CALIFORNIA,  U.  S.  A. 

Cited  as  Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Class.  Phil. 

CLASSICAL  PHILOLOGY.— Edward  B.  Clapp,  WiUiam  A.  Merrill,  Herbert  O.  Nutting, 
Editors.    Price  per  volume  $2.50. 

Vol.  1.    1.  Hiatus  In  Greek  Mellc  Poetry,  by  Edward  Ball  Clapp.    Pp.  1-34.    June, 

2.  Studies  in  the  Si-Clause.    I.  Concessive  Si-Clauses  in  Plantus.    II.  Sub- 

junctive Protasis  and  Indicative  Apodosis  In  Plautus.    By  Herbert  O. 
Nutting.    Pp.  86-94.    January,  1905 .60 

3.  The  Whence  and  Whither  of  the  Modem  Science  of  Language,  by  Benj. 

Ide  Wheeler.    Pp.  95-109.    May,  1906 „ _..„ i!6 

4.  On  the  Eolation  of  Horace  to  Lucretius,  by  William  A.  MerrilL    Pp. 

111-129.    October,  1905  „ .28 

5.  The  Priests  of  Asklepios,  a  New  Method  of  Dating  Athenian  Archons, 

by  William  Scott  Ferguson.    Pp.  181-173.    April  14,  1906  (reprinted 
September,  1907)  „ .60 

6.  Horace's  Alcaic  Strophe,  by  Leon  Joslah  Eichardson.      Pp.   175-201. 

March,  1907 25 

7.  Some  Phases  of  the  Relation  of  Thought  to  Verse  in  Plautus,  by  Henxy 

Washington  Prescott.    Pp.  205-262.    June,  1907 .50 

Index,  pp.  263-270. 

Vol.  2.  1.  Some  Textual  Criticisms  on  the  Eighth  Book  of  the  De  Vita  Caesarum 
of  Suetonius,  by  William  Hardy  Alexander.  Pp.  1-33.  November, 
1908    „ .30 

2.  Cicero's  Bjiowledge  of  Lucretius 's  Poem,  by  William  A.  Merrill.    Pp. 

35-42.     September,  1909  _ „ „ „. _ _ lo 

8.  The  Conspiracy  at  Rome  in  66-65  B.C.,  by  H.  C.  Nutting.     January. 
1910    _      .10 

4.  On  the  Contracted  Genitive  In  I  in  Latin,  by  William  A.  Merrill.    Pp. 

57-79.    February,  1910  „ _ 25 

5.  Epaphos  and  the  Egyptian  Apis,  by  Ivan  M.  Linforth.     Pp.  81-92. 

August,  1910  10 

6.  Studies  in  the  Text  of  Lucretius,  by  William  A.  Merrill.     Pp.  93-150. 

June,  1911 ^.. 50 

7.  The  Separat-on  of  the  Attribuoive  Adjective  from  its  Substantive  in 

Plautus,  by  Winthrop  L.  Keep.    Pp.  151-164.    June,  1911  15 

GEAECO-ROMAN  AECHAEOLOGY.     (Quarto.) 

Vol.  1.  The  Tebtunis  Papyri,  Part  1.  Edited  by  Bernard  P.  Grenfell,  Arthur  S. 
Hunt,  and  J.  Gilbart  Smyly.  xix  -f  674  pages,  with  9  collotype  plates. 
1902.  £2  5s,  $16. 
Vol.  2.  The  Tebtunis  Papyri,  Part  2.  Edited  by  Bernard  P.  Grenfell  and  Arthur 
S.  Hunt,  with  the  assistance  of  Edgar  J.  Goodspeed.  xvl-f  486  pages 
and  2  collotype  plates,  with  map.  1907. 
Vol.  8.    The  Tebtunis  Papyri,  Part  S.    Edited  by  Bernard  P.  Grenfell,  Arthur  S. 

Hunt,  and  J.  Gilbart  Cmyly.     (In  preparation.) 
For  sale  by  the  Oxford  University  Press  (Henry  Frowde),  Amen  Comer,  London, 
E.C.     (£2  6s),  and  91-93  Fifth  avenue,  New  York  ($16).    Copies  for  exchange  may  be 
obtained  from  the  University  Press,  Berkeley. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA   PUBLICATIONS 

IN 

CLASSICAL    PHILOLOGY 

Vol.  2,  No.  7,  pp.  151-164  June  28,  191 1 


THE  SEPARATION  OF   THE  ATTRIBUTIVE 

ADJECTIVE   FROM  ITS   SUBSTANTIVE 

IN  PLAUTUS 


BY 

WINTHROP    L.    KEEP 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

In  June,  1909,  I  submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  the  University 
of  California  a  dissertation  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Phil- 
osophy, entitled  "The  Separation  of  the  Attributive  Adjective 
from  its  Substantive  in  Plautus. "  The  present  essay  is  an 
abstract  of  this  dissertation,  as  somewhat  revised  and  shortened 
after  further  study  and  reflection. 

I  desire  to  express  here  my  great  gratitude  to  Professor  H.  W. 
Prescott  for  assisting  me  in  selecting  the  subject  of  the  disserta- 
tion, and  giving  his  helpful  advice  and  criticism  in  the  early 
stages  of  the  paper.  Thanks  are  also  due  to  Professors  Merrill 
and  Richardson  for  their  kindly  interest,  and  especially  to  Pro- 
fessor H.  C.  Nutting  for  his  close  criticism  of  the  paper  and  his 

helpful  suggestions. 

W.  L.  Keep. 

Oakland,  Calif.,  March,  1911. 


244554 


152  University  of  California  Publications  in  Classical  Philology.      [Vol.  2 

INTRODUCTION 

Normally  in  Plautus  and,  in  fact,  in  all  the  other  early  Latin 
poets,  the  attributive  adjective  either  immediately  precedes  or 
immediately  follows  its  substantive.^  A  few  concrete  examples, 
taken  at  random,  will  illustrate  the  truth  of  this  statement.  The 
phrase  res  divina  occurs  twenty-four  times  in  Plautus,  and  the 
two  words  are  separated  only  once  (E.  415)  ;  supremus  luppiter, 
out  of  its  ten  occurrences,  gives  only  one  case  of  separation  (Ps. 
628)  ;  erilis  films  (or  filia)  only  two  cases  out  of  eighteen  occur- 
rences (B.  351  and  Ci.  749).  Such  statistics  might  be  quoted 
indefinitely.^ 

The  present  paper  is  a  study  of  the  comparatively  infrequent 
instances  in  our  author,  in  which,  within  the  verse,^  the  attribu- 
tive adjective  is  separated  from  its  substantive.  I  have  en- 
deavored to  point  out,  where  possible,  what  are  the  probable 
factors  that  bring  about  such  separations,  but  to  a  great  extent 
the  treatment  can  be  only  descriptive,  as  too  often  we  are  not  in 
a  position  to  assume  the  author's  point  of  view,  and  to  penetrate 
his  motives  for  adopting  a  given  woid-order. 

Before  we  proceed  to  consider  the  instances  of  separation  in 

detail,  a  few  observations  of  a  general  nature  upon  the  subject 

may  be  helpful.     Whenever  an  attributive  adjective  precedes, 

and  is  separated  from  its  substantive  by  one  or  more  words,  as  in 

Magnasque  adportavisse  divitias  domum,     (S.  412) 

Pulmoneum  edepol  nimis  velim  vomitum  vomas.      (R.  511) 


1  In  order  to  get  as  much  light  as  possible  on  Plautine  usage  by  way  of 
comparison,  I  read  practically  all  the  early  Latin  poetry  written  before 
100  B.C.,  also  the  early  inscriptions,  and  noted  all  the  instances  in  these 
authors  in  which  an  adjective  is  separated  from  its  substantive.  As  far  as 
the  collocation  of  the  adjective  and  substantive  is  concerned,  the  usage 
of  all  these  authors  seems  strikingly  similar  to  that  of  Plautus. 

2  The  reader  is  referred  to  two  most  useful  books:  Rassow,  De  Plauti 
substantivis,  Leipzig,  1881,  =  JHB.  Supplbd.  12  (1881,  639-732;  and  Hel- 
wig.  Adjectives  in  Plautus  (St.  Petersburg,  1893)  (in  Russian,  but  contain- 
ing in  roman  type  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  adjectives  used  by  our 
author).  By  means  of  the  alphabetical  lists  contained  in  these  two  works, 
all  the  occurrences  in  Plautus  of  any  adjective  or  noun  can  readily  be 
located. 

3  Of  course  I  have  omitted  all  instances  of  separation  by  the  verse,  as 
such  have  already  been  treated  by  Prescott,  ' '  Some  Phases  of  the  Relation 
of  Thought  to  Verse  in  Plautus,"  Univ.  Calif.  Publ.  Class.  Phil.,  vol.  1, 
no.  7,  1907.  This  work  was  of  great  assistance  to  me  in  the  preparation  of 
the  present  paper. 


1911]  Keep. — The  Separated  Adjective  in  Plautus.  153 

there  is  always  the  possibility  to  be  reckoned  with  that  such  an 
adjective  acquires  emphasis  by  occupying  this  position;  on  the 
other  hand,  when  the  adjective  is  separated  from,  and  follows  its 
substantive,  it  may  be  more  or  less  amplifying,*  as  in 

Nam  OS  columnatum  poetae  esse  indaudivi  barbaro,     (Ml.  211) 

However,  we  must  always  be  on  our  guard  against  reading 
too  much  meaning  into  the  fact  that  an  adjective  is  separated 
from  its  noun,  as  sometimes  it  is  mere  caprice  on  the  poet's  part 
whether  it  is  separated  or  not,  and  if  separated,  whether  it  pre- 
cedes or  follow^s,  as  is  clearly  attested  by  the  four  passages  below : 

Nimia  menioras  mira.   sed  vidistin  uxorem  meam?      (Am.  616) 
Nimia  mira  memoras:  si  istaec  vera  sunt,  divinitus     (Am.  1105) 
Quod  omnis  homines  facere  oportet,  dum  id  modo  fiat  bono.       (Am.  996) 
Quin  amet  et  scortuni  ducat,  quod  bono  fiat  modo.      (Mr.  1022) 

Metrical  considerations  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question 
here,  as  in  many  cases  of  separation,  since  the  meter  is  the  same 
in  Am.  616  and  1105,  and  bono  and  modo  are  metrically  inter- 
changeable. 

In  this  paper  I  have  confined  my  discussion  to  ordinary 
attributive  adjectives,  leaving  out  of  account  pronominal  adjec- 
tives^ and  cardinal  numerals.  I  have  also  excluded  the  lyrical 
portions  of  the  plays.  Trivial  separations,  common  to  prose, 
such  as  those  by  the  enclitics  -que,  -ve,  -ne,  and  a  preposition,  are 
disregarded.    The  text  employed  is  that  of  Goetz  and  Schoell. 

I.     CONSCIOUS  ART-SEPARATIONS. 

Certain  separations  of  the  adjective  from  its  substantive  are 
undoubtedly  due  to  conscious  art  on  the  poet's  part.  Naturally 
the  first  of  these  conscious  art-separations  to  be  mentioned  are 
those  in  which  the  adjective  and  its  substantive  occupy  the 
opposite  extremities  of  the  same  verse,",  as  in  the  following : 
Minore  nusquam  bene  fui  dispendio.      (Mn.  485) 


4  Prescott,  loc.  cit.,  218. 

5  This  phase  of  the  subject  has  been  treated  by  Nilsson,  de  collocatione 
pron.  adi.  apud  Plautum  et  Terentium,  Lunds  Universitets  Aarsskrift,  37, 
1901. 

6  Cf.  Norden,  Aeneis  Buch  vi,  382  sq.,  for  a  full  and  interesting  discus- 
sion of  this  collocation  in  Virgil  and  several  other  authors. 


154  University  of  California  Publications  in  Classical  Philology.      [Vol.  2 

Cf.  Am.  481,  As.  311,  599,  Al.  49,^  B.  585,  Cp.  64,  Ca.  13,  Ci.  587, 
Cu.  221,  Po.  1080,  S.  526.« 

A  slightly  different  type,  in  which  another  attributive  adjec- 
tive, also  in  agreement  with  the  substantive,  occurs  in  the  interior 
of  the  verse,  is  represented  by 

Magno  atque  solido  multat  infortunio:      (Mr.  21) 
Cf.  Am.  6,  Mn.  520,  Pe.  573,»  683,  R.  597,  E.  18,  Tr.  331. 

Two  examples  of  the  reverse  type  appear  below ;  the  first  has 
alliteration  as  an  attendant  feature: 

Mercator  venit  hue  ad  ludos  Lemnius     (Ci.  157) 
Frustrationem  |  hodie  iniciam  maxumam.     (Am.  875) 

For  other  instances  of  this  collocation  with  alliteration  cf. 
Mn.  1,  Po.  1125,  S.  258;  without  alliteration,  B.  198,  229,  256, 
Cu.  227,  Mn.  240,  Ps.  72,  694,  1167,  R.  42,  843. 

The  tendency  of  long  adjectives  and  nouns,  metrically  suit- 
able, to  stand  at  the  verse-end^°  is  doubtless  a  factor  to  be 
reckoned  with  in  a  number  of  the  instances  of  separation  so  far 
discussed.     (Cf.  below,  p.  156.) 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  many  Greek  and  Latin  poets  are 
fond  of  placing  an  attributive  adjective  immediately  before  the 
principal  caesura  or  diaeresis,  and  its  substantive  at  the  end  of 
the  verse,  or  vice  versa.^^  While  Plautus  does  not  adopt  this 
balanced  arrangement  so  frequently  as  some  of  the  later  Latin 
poets,  still  he  has  quite  a  number  of  instances  like  the  following : 

Quod  cum  peregrin!  cubui  uxore  militis.      (B.  1009) 

Et  tibi  sunt  gemini  et  trigemini,  si  te  bene  habes^  filii.      (Ml.  717) 

Cf.  Am.  471,  863,  B.  420,  Cp.  105,  185,^^  Ci.  749,  Cu.  200,  709, 


7  In  Al.  49  the  adnominal  word-play  grandibo  gradiim,  is  a  factor  in  the 
situation  to  be  noted.    Cf.  also  E.  597. 

8  With  S.  526  cf.  Terence,  Heaut.  539: 

Magnarum  saepe  id  remedium  aegritudinumst. 

9  The  anaphora  in  Pe.  571-573  should  be  noted. 

10  Cf.  Prescott,  206  sqq. ;  also  235  sqq.,  for  remarks  on  adjectives  of  cretic 
measurement. 

11  Boldt,  de  liberiore  linguae  graecae  et  latinae  collocatione  verborum 
capita  selecta  (Gottingen,  1884),  79:  "Tali  verborum  collocatione  plerum- 
que  id,  quod  sub  finem  positum  est,  maiorem  consequitur  accentum,  saepe 
autem  utrumque  vocabulum  seiunctione  emphasin  quandam  exercet. ' ' 

12  The  interlocked  word-order  in  Cp.  185  is  probably  intentional. 


1911]  Keep. — The  Separated  Adjective  in  Plautus.  155 

Mn.  4,  231,  Mr.  398,  Ml.  774,  Mo.  808,  Po.  362,  746,  1164,  Ps.  548, 
732,  893,  S.  163,  214,  387,  Tu.  87^  350,  447,  Frivolaria  VII. 

Not  infrequently  alliteration  or  adnominal  word-play  is  a 
feature  of  this  word  order : 

.Erogitare,  meo  minore  quid  sit  factum  filio.      (Cp.  952) 
Neque  tam  facetis,  quam  tu  vivis,  victibus.      (Mo.  45) 

Cf.  Am.  475,  976,  B.  351,  761,  Cp.  27,  Ps.  158,  628,  1232,  S.  132, 
Tu.  892. 

The  reverse  word-order  (substantive  before  caesura  and  adjec- 
tive at  the  end  of  the  verse)  sometimes  occurs,  as  in 
Quoi  servitutem  di  danunt  lenoniam      (Ps.  767) 

These  instances,  however,  I  have  classed  under  other  categories  of 
examples,  as  apparently  the  length  of  the  adjective,  or  its  metrical 
convenience,  is  the  most  important  factor  in  producing  such 
separations. 

Next  to  be  considered  are  a  number  of  conscious  art-separa- 
tions due  primarily  to  Plautus '  fondness  for  adnominal  word-play 
and  figura  etymologica  :^^ 

Sordido  vitam  oblectabas  pane  in  pannis  inopia:      (As.  142) i* 
Pulmoneum  edepol  nimis  velim  vomitum  vomas.      (R.  511) 
Omnium  hominum  exopto  ut  fiam  miserorum  miserrumus.     (Mn.  817) 
Male  formido:  novi  ego  huius  mores  morosi  males.     (Po.  379) is 

For  very  similar  instances  cf.  B.  187,  490,  Cp.  333,  914,  Cu.  533, 
E.  306,  Po.  991,  Tu.  278.  Cf.  also  Am.  137,  204,  605,  1116,  Cp. 
774,  Ci.  231,  Mn.  274,  447,  Mr.  847,  Ml.  198,  228,  309,  734, 
Po.  308,  759,  Ps.  704,  R.  100,  305,  886,  S.  63,  383. 

In  his  desire  for  sound-effects,  Plautus  apparently  sometimes 
separates  the  adjective  from  its  noun  primarily  to  avail  himself 
of  alliterative  possibilities  :^^ 


13  Of  course  other  factors,  such  as  metrical  convenience,  often  must  be 
taken  into  account. 

1*  Many  of  the  instances  of  adnominal  word-play  that  concern  us  here 
are  more  fully  discussed  by  Raebel,  de  usu  adnominationis  apud  Romanorum 
poetas  comicos  (Halle,  1882),  passim. 

13  Boldt,  op.  cit.,  93,  calls  attention  to  the  elaborate  interlocked  order  in 
Po.  379. 

16  Buchhold,  de  adliterationis  apud  veteres  Romanorum  poetas  usu 
(Leipzig,  1883),  passim. 


156  University  of  California  Publications  in  Classical  Philology.      [Vol.  2 

Ldrgitur  peculium:  omnem  in  tergo  thensaurum  gerit.      (As.  277) 
At  nunc  dehinc  scito  ilium  ante  omnes  minumi  mortalem  preti, 

(As.  858)17 
Liberos  homines  per  urbem  modico  magis  par  est  gradu 
fre:      (Po.  522) is 
Perfidiae  laudes  gratiasque  habemus  merito  mdgnas,     (As.  545) 

For  other  instances  of  separation  largely  due  to  alliteration  cf. 
B.  988,  Mr.  363,  Ml.  778,  Pe.  559,  Po.  407,  968,  1245,  Ps.  369,  761, 
R.  87,  101,  636.  Of  course  there  are  numerous  other  cases  of 
separation  where  alliteration  is  an  attendant  feature.  Through- 
out this  paper  attention  will  be  called  to  many  such  instances. 

II.     SEPARATIONS  LARGELY  DUE  TO  LENGTH   AND   METRICAL 
CONVENIENCE  OF  THE  ADJECTIVE. 

Long  adjectives,  metrically  suitable,  tend  to  stand  at  the 
verse-end.  The  same  is  true  of  many  adjectives  of  cretic  meas- 
urement.^" Even  adjectives  of  iambic  and  pyrrhic  measurement 
show  this  tendency  to  some  extent.-"  Hence  it  is  not  at  all  strange 
that  in  a  large  number  of  instances  the  substantives  with  which 
these  adjectives  are  in  agreement  precede  the  latter  by  one  or 
more  intervening  words.  It  is  true  that  in  many  of  these  cases 
other  factors,  such  as  sound-effects,  must  be  taken  into  account. 
Frequently  the  substantive  immediately  precedes  the  principal 
caesura  or  diaeresis,^^  giving  the  balanced  arrangement  men- 
tioned above  (p.  155). 


17  By  means  of  this  word-order  the  alliterating  syllables  mi-  and  mor- 
both  receive  the  metrical  accent,  which  greatly  heightens  the  pleasing  effect. 
Minumi  preti  (gen.  sing.)  occurs  in  seven  other  passages  in  Plautus,  always 
without  separation,  and  with  j)reti  always  at  the  verse-end,  as  here.  For  an 
interesting  parallel  to  this  passage  cf.  Naevius,  Incert.  Fab.  1  (Ribbeck 
II,  p.  25): 

PatI  necesse  est  multa  mortals  mala. 

18  The  contrast  between  liberos  and  modico  is  heightened  by  the  fact 
that  one  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  and  the  other  immediately 
after  the  diaeresis. 

19  Cf.  Prescott,  207  and  footnote  2;  also  234-239. 

20  Below  are  a  few  statistical  illustrations  of  the  above  statements; 
the  figures  after  each  adjective  indicate  respectively  the  number  of  times 
it  occurs  at  the  verse-end,  and  the  total  number  of  its  occurrences: 
pawperculus,  4-5;  acerrumus,  6-7;  pauxillulus,  6-8;  praesentariu^,  5-5;  argen- 
teus,  7-7;  argentarius,  18-19;  lenonius,  9-11;  Atticus,  10-18;  marumtis,  39- 
86;  aureus,  15-27;  mutuus,  14-26;  barbarus,  5-7;  meru^,  12-23.  Statistics 
for  any  other  adjective  can  be  found  by  consulting  Helwig. 

21  Al.  525,  B.  1018,  Cu.  239,  Mn.  6,  58,  67.  102,  Mr.  811.  Mo.  361.  621, 
828,  Pe.  512,  Po.  139,  651,  705,  708,  Ps.  80,  100,  424,  767,  R.  70,  S.  768. 
Tr.  216,  847,  962,  Tu.  43,  697. 


1911]  Keep. — The  Separated  Adjective  in  Flautus.  157 

Let  us  first  consider  adjectives  of  four  or  more  syllables  in 
length.  Alliteration  is  an  attendant  feature  of  the  separation  in 
Cu.  205  : 

inter  nos  amore  utemur  semper  subreptlcio? 
Cf.  also  Al.  171,  B.  94,  Cp.  901,  E.  159,  Mn.  595,  Mr.  193,  Ml. 
1177,  Mo.  361,  913,  Po.  705,  R.  69,  S.  138,  Tu  697. 

The  following  is  a  typical  instance  in  which  length  is  perhaps 
the  only  factor  producing  the  separation : 

Atque  adeo,  ut  ne  legi  fraudem  faciant  aleariae,     (Ml.  164) 
Cf.  B.  675,  Cp.  775,  Cu.  239,  660,  Mn.  6,  102,  436,  845,  Mo.  404, 
621,  Pe.  97,  Po.  651,  708,  Ps.  100,  146,  303,  424,  706,  766,  767, 
R.  70,  1320,  S.  760,  Tr.  216,  Tu.  72,  880. 

Atticus  is  a  good  representative  of  adjectives  of  cretic  fand 

dactylic)    measurement.     In  ten  of  its  eighteen  occurrences  it 

stands  at  the  end  of  the  verse.    Three  times  when  in  this  position 

it  concerns  us : 

Ego  illam  reperiam. — Hinc  Athenis  civis  earn  emit  Attieus:  (E.  602) 
Civisne  esset  an  peregrinus. — Clvem  esse  aibant  Atticum.  (Mr.  635) 
immo  Athenis  natus  altnsque  educatusque  Atticis.     (E.  741) 

For  similar  instances  of  other  adjectives  of  cretic  (and  dactylic) 
measurement  in  this  position  cf.  maxumus  (Am.  782,  Mn.  67, 
Mr.  632,  811,  Ml.  75,  Pe.  512,  Po.  842,  Ps.  897),  omnia  (Am.  948, 
B.  1018,  Po.  704,  726,  R.  639,  Tr.  1168,  Tu.  774,  798),  aureus 
(Am.  144,  260,  Cu.  439),  publicus  (Am.  524,  Pe.  75,  Tr.  1057), 
mutuus  (Cu.  68,  Ps.  80),--  proxumus  (As.  776,  R.  84,  561), 
alterum  (Mn.  38,  58,  1088),  parvolus  (R.  39,  S.  161),  optumus 
(Cp.  946,  Ml.  1210),  plumbeus  (Ca.  258,  Tr.  962),  harbarus 
Ml.  211,  Mo.  828),  pessumus  (Ps.  270,  R.  40),  and  also  Am. 
280,23  Al.  525,  626,  Cp.  169,  Ml.  1178,  Pe.  571,-*  Po.  139,  R.  574, 
1010. 

Four  times,  when  standing  at  the  end  of  the  verse,  merus  is 
separated  from  its  noun  : 

Eam  ego,  ut  matre  fuerat  natum,  vini  |  eduxi  meri.      (Am.  430) 
Factumst  illud,  ut  ego  illic  vini  hirneam  ebiberim  meri.      (Am.  431) 
Ne  mihi  |  incocta  detis.     Rem  loquitur  meram.      (Pe.  93) 
Si  semel  amoris  poculum  accepit  meri.      (Tu.  43) 


22  Cf.  Prescott  234,  for  the  suggestion  that  muiuum  may  have  a  sub- 
stantival force. 

23  Note  the  alliteration  in  Am.  280. 

24  In  Pe.  571  the  artificial  arrangement  ferreas — ferrea  should  be  noted. 


158  University  of  California  Publications  in  Classical  Philology.      [Vol.  2 

For  other  adjectives  of  iambic  and  pyrrhic  measurement  in  this 
position  cf  bonus  (Am.  996,  B.  1022,  E.  107,  Ml.  733,  Tr.  28), 
malus  (Mo.  531,  Ps.  492,  974,  Tr.  128,  U6,^''  847),  novus  (E.  229, 
Mo.  466,  S.  768),  vetus  (Ci.  505,  Mr.  771),  gravis  (As.  55,  E. 
557),  also  Al.  606,  Mn.  908,  Mr.  999,  Po.  508,  Tu.  797. 

III.     INTERVENING  WORDS  OP  AN  ENCLITIC  NATURE. 

In  the  following  section  of  this  paper  I  propose  to  present  a 
large  number  of  examples  in  which  it  is  probable  that  the  enclitic 
nature  of  the  intervening  word  accounts  for  the  separation. 
WackernageP"  has  shown  that  short  enclitic  words,  including 
many  pronouns,  tend  to  occupy  the  second  or  third  place  in  their 
sentence.  The  following  lines  illustrate  how  this  tendency  fre- 
quently affects  the  position  of  the  adjective : 

Voluptabilem  mihi  nuntium  tuo  adventu  adportas  Thesprio.     (E.  21) 

Canora  hie  voce  sua  tinnire  temperent,     (Po.  33) 

Avis  me  ferae  consimilem  faciam,  ut  praedicas.     (Cp.  123) 

Peiorem  ego  hominem  magisque  vorsute  malum     (Ps.  1017) 

DI  me  omnes  magni  minutique  et  etiam  patellarii     (Ci.  522) 

There  are  a  great  many  other  passages  in  which  an  intervening 
pronoun  or  pronominal  adverb  occupies  the  second  or  third  place 
in  its  sentence  or  clause.^^  Sometimes,  by  the  law  of  pronominal 
attraction,  two  pronouns  intervene,  as  in  Ca.  584,  E.  302,  669, 
Mn.  199.  In  Mn.  551  and  Tr.  1030  a  pronoun  and  quidem  occupy 
this  position ;  in  Tr.  68  an  elided  pronoun  and  ut.  The  following 
lines  are  of  especial  interest  : 

Stills  me  totum  usque  iilmeis  conscribito.     (Ps.  545) 
Locum  sibi  velle  liberum  praeb^rier,     (Po.  177  and  657) 

In  the  first,  totum  usque  simply  amplifies  me;  in  the  second,  sihi 
velle  is  probably  a  stereotyped  phrase. 

Often  the  intervening  pronominal  word  does  not  occupy  the 


26  In  Tr.  446  the  chiastic  arrangement  of  bonis  and  malas  should  be 
observed. 

26  Indog.  Forsch.,  i,  406  if. 

27  Am.  525,  As.  69,  Al.  324,  340,  482,  B.  55.  913,  1141,  Cp.  355,  859,  861, 
Ci.  369,  670,  E.  693,  Mr.  49,  141,  477,  Ml.  21,  731,  Mo.  371,  532,  779, 
Pe.  238,  292,  Po.  75,  317,  Ps.  69,  329,  474,  584,  590,  968,  1200,  R.  303,  476, 
1100,  S.  259,  365,  420,  Tr.  365,  453,  655,  997,  Tu.  131,  285,  438,  812,  Vid.  85, 
Frag.  fab.  inc.  vii. 


1911]  Keep. — The  Separated  Adjective  in  Plautus.  159 

second   or   third   place   in   its   sentence  ;^^   sometimes,   however, 

alliteration  may  explain  this  fact,  as  prohri  me  maxumi  (Ml.  364) , 

partem  mihi  maiorem  (Ml.  711),  undas  me  maioris  (R.  167). 

Several  forms  of  the  verb  sum   (especially  the  monosyllabic 

forms)   are  undoubtedly  enclitics.     This  fact  probably  accounts 

for  the  large  number  of  instances  in  which  these  forms  separate 

the  adjective  from  its  substantive.    Below  are  three  typical  cases : 

Item  genus  est  lenonium  inter  homines  meo  quidem  animo     (Cu.  499) 
Magni  sunt  oneris:  quicquid  imponas,  vehunt.     (Mo.  782) 
Scio  te  bona  esse  voce:  ne  clama  nimis.     (Mo.  576) 

The  complete  list  of  instances  is  as  follows : 
Sum :  Am.  34,  Al.  2,  Mo.  564,  Ps.  1025. 
Es  (contracted)  :  As.  511,  B.  74,  Ml.  49,  Mo.  176,  Tu.  134. 
Es  (uncontracted)  :  Cp.  427,  Mo.  251. 

Est  (contracted)  -r-^  Am.  506,  1054,  Al.  235,  Cp.  104,  Ci.  80, 

492,  Cu.  15,  49,  189,  E.  163,  425,  675,  Mr.  378,  Ml.  68,  682, 

Pe.  516,  547,  830,  Po.  10,  1370,  Ps.  791,  R.  144,  1156,  1387, 

S.  116,  200,  524,  748,  Tr.  24,  Vid.  31. 

Est  (uncontracted)  :  Am.  484,  B.  120,  Cu.  49,  499,  Mn.  906, 

1087,  Ml.  665,  Po.  200,  Ps.  782,  R.  1160,  Tu.  149,  246. 
Estis:  Cu.  501. 

Sunt :  Mn.  94,  Mr.  969,  Mo.  782,  Pe.  243,  Po.  584,  Ps.  268. 
Sis :  As.  726,  Mr.  890,  Mo.  396. 
Esse  :^°  Am.  1090,  Ci.  660,  E.  415,  Mr.  966,  Ml.  68,  Mo.  576, 

Pe.  113,^^  Tr.  456. 
Another  class  of  enclitic  words,  sometimes  separating  the 
adjective  from  its  noun,  are  the  asseverative  particles  hercle, 
edepol,  mecastor.^"^  Three  instances  of  this  collocation  are  Fulcra 
edepol  dos  (E.  180),  Conceptis  hercle  verbis  (Ps.  1056),  Lepidus 
mecastor  mortalis   (Tu.  949).  Cf.  also  E.  192,  715,  Pe.  193,  Po.  45, 


as  Am.  926,  B.  570,  Cp.  539,  Ca.  264,  Ci.  778,  E.  299,  Ml.  751,  Mo.  763, 
Pe.  565,  Po.  895,  Ps.  228,  729,  E.  546,  999,  1147,  1221  Tr.  97,  1139,  Tu.  35, 
216.  Before  we  leave  this  phase  of  the  subject,  three  instances  in  which 
a  pronoun  and  its  governing  preposition  intervene  should  be  mentioned: 
As.  918,  Tr.  548,  1011. 

29  I  have  disregarded  the  intervening  contracted  form  of  sum  in  such 
instances  as  unicust  mihi  filius  (Ca.  264). 

30  The  infinitive  esse  frequently  becomes  monosyllabic  by  elision. 

31  Infinitive  of  edo. 

32  Wackernagel,  loc.  cit.  423  sq. 


160  University  of  California  Publications  in  Classical  Philology.      [  Vol.  2 

Ps.  992.  In  the  following  lines,  one  of  these  three  ^yo^ds  inter- 
venes in  combination  with  one  other  word :  As.  471,  B.  999,  Mn. 
1013,33  Mr.  442,  521,  567,  Mo.  657,  Pe.  546,  Po.  978. 

Probably  the  adverbs  quidem^*  (As.  762,  :M1.  1282,  R.  529), 
and  quoque^^  (Mo.  1110,  Tr.  753)  owe  their  intervention  to  their 
enclitic  nature. 

IV.     SINGLE  INTERVENING  WORDS. 

In  the  next  section  of  this  paper  will  be  presented  all  the 
instances  of  separation,  not  already  discussed,  in  which  a  single 
word  intervenes  between  the  adjective  and  its  noun.  I  shall 
classify  these  examples  on  a  mechanical  basis,  according  as  the 
intervening  word  is  a  verb,  noun,  adverb,  etc. 

By  far  the  largest  class  consists  of  instances  in  which  some 
form  of  the  verb  separates  the  adjective  from  its  noun.  Some- 
times the  adjective  begins  the  line,  as  in 

Erilis  praevortit  metus:  accurro  ut  sciscam  quid  velit:      (Am.  1069) 
Cf.  Am.  616,  B.  782,  838,  Mn.  1000,  Ps.  17,  R.  552,  764,-'«  S.  412. 

Another  type  is  represented  by 

Gratesque  agam  eique  ut  Arabico  fumificeni  odore  amoene:  (Ml.  412) 
Cf.  Am.  328,  785,  As.  575,  Al.  192,  Cp.  56,  Ca.  332,  Ci.  6,  98,  128, 
E.  397,  Mr.  859,  Ml.  763,  Pe.  313,  Po.  331,  901,  1258,  R.  530, 
1123,  S.  772,  Tu.  484,  781.  In  Po.  964  and  Tu.  136  an  elided 
monosyllable  and  a  verb  intervene. 

An  exceedingly   common  word-order  is  represented  by  six 

instances  in  which  the  noun  nianus,  standing  at  the  end  of  the 

verse,  is  separated  from  its  adjective  by  some  form  of  the  verb : 

Quom  Priami  patriam  P^rgamum  divina  moenitum  manu.     (B.  926) 

Perque  conservitiiim  commune  quod  hostica  evenit  mami,     (Cp.  246) 

Ha6e  per  dexterdm  tuam  te  dextera  retinens  manu      (Cp.  442) 

Si  quisquam  banc  liberali  asseruisset  manu,     (Cu.  668) 

Lepidis  tabellis,  lepida  conscriptis  manu?     (Ps.  28)37 

T4m  mihi  quam  illi  libertatem  hostilis  erpuit  manus:      (Cp.  311) 

33  In  Mn.  1013  and  Mr.  442  the  alliteration  should  be  noted. 

34  Lane,  Latin  Grammar  (1903),  93,  (6). 

35  Lindsay,  Syntax  of  Plautus  (Oxford,  1907),  92. 

30  The  chiastic  arrangement  of  R.  764  gives  a  certain  pathos.  Cf. 
Tr.  446. 

37  For  other  instances  in  which  the  same  adjective  stands  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  verse  and  immediately  after  the  caesura  cf.  Cp.  333,  Ml.  228; 
also  Am.  785. 


1911]  Keep. — The  Separated  Adjective  in  Plautus.  161 

Metrical  convenience  is  perhaps  here  a  factor  to  be  taken  into 
account,  as  manu  (abl.  sing.)  in  forty-nine  out  of  a  total  of 
eighty-two  occurrences,  is  at  the  verse-end,  manus  (nom.  sing.) 
in  six  out  of  nine,  and  manum  in  thirty-one  out  of  fifty.  Other 
nouns  often  standing  at  the  verse-end,  and  in  more  than  one 
instance  separated  from  the  adjective  by  an  intervening  verb, 
are  modus  (Am.  119,  B.  507^  Mr.  1022,  R.  895), ^^  via  (As.  54, 
B.  692,  Cu.  35),  fides  (As.  199,  Ml.  456,  Po.  439),  honiim  (Pe.  63, 
74,  Tr.  220),  gratia  (Ci.  7,  Tr.  376,  659),  locus  (Ca.  537,  R. 
1185),  dies  (Pe.  115,  S.  638).  There  are  also  numerous  other 
instances  of  this  collocation.^*^  Ut  and  a  verb  intervene  in  Am. 
490,  As.  695,  and  Ca.  558 ;  in  Al.  630  a  verb  and  elided  mono- 
syllable. 

In  the  instances  of  separation  just  treated,  the  adjective  pre- 
ceded its  substantive.  Many  examples  of  the  reverse  word  order 
occur,  however,  as 

Causiam  habeas  ferrugineam  et  scutulam  ob  oculos  laneam: 

(Ml.  1178) 

Cf.  Am.  189,  Al.  191,  B.  370,  422,  513,  566,*''  785,  Cp.  862,  918, 
Mn.  232,  858,  Mr.  41,  Ml.  1179,  Mo.  673,  1122,  Po.  1026,  R.  325, 
753,  977,  1412,  S.  209,  Tr.  85,  171. 

The  many  instances  in  which  the  adjective  is  at  the  verse-end, 
and  is  separated  from  its  preceding  substantive  merely  by  an 
intervening  verb,  have  already  been  discussed,  chiefly  in  con- 
nection with  separations  due  to  the  length  or  metrical  conveni- 
ence of  the  adjective. 

The  great  number  of  cases  in  which  a  verb  slips  in  between 
an  adjective  and  its  substantive  would  seem  to  indicate  that  such 
a  separation  was  not  considered  a  violent  one.  Even  the  early 
sepulchral  monuments  sometimes  exhibit  this  word  order : 

Eheu,  heu  Taracei  ut  acerbo  es  deditus  fato.      (C.I.L.,  I,  1202) 
Tu  qui  secura  spatiarus  niente  viator     (I,  1220) 
Concordesque  pari  viximus  ingenio.     (Ibidem) 


38  Cf.  also  B.  490  (already  discussed  under  adnoniinal  word-play). 

39  Am.  190,  785,  1088,  1140,  As.  34,  Al.  313,  595,  B.  71,  446,  590,  Cp.  476, 
722,  780,  Ca.  6,  469,  511,  Ci.  232,  701,  Cu.  537,  Mn.  73,  828,  Ml.  547,  Mo. 
1141,  Pe.  480,  Po.  915,  Ps.  312,  1228,  R.  609,  S.  500,  Tu.  517. 

40  Note  the  alliteration  in  B.  566. 


162  University  of  California  Publications  in  Classical  Philology.      [Vol.  2 

"With  the  exception  of  limiting  genitives*^  (As.  520,  Cu.  334, 
Mr.  547,  Po.  451,  524,  R.  311,  402,  1318,  1344),  and  vocatives*^' 
(Mn.  506,  Mr.  710,  R.  1151),  a  noun  seldom  intervenes  between 
the  adjective  and  its  substantive.  The  instances  yet  remaining 
to  be  mentioned  are  de  summo  adulesce^is  loco  (Al.  28),  servi 
f acinus  frugi  (Al.  587),  maxumam  multo  fidem  (Al.  667),*^  in 
via  petronem  publica  (Cp.  821),  meliorest  opus  auspicio  (Mn. 
1149),  festivam  mulier  opcram  (Ml.  591),  Fortuna  faculam 
lucrifera  (Pe.  515)." 

Still  rarer  are  the  instances  in  which  an  adjective  intervenes : 

Quod  me  sollieitat  pliirumis  miserum  modis.      (Al.  66) 

Veluti  Megadorus  temptat  me  omnibus  miserum  modis:      (Al.  462)*^ 

To  these  examples  are  to  be  added  cum  opulento  pauper  homine 
(Al.  461),*"  and  advocatos  meliusi  celeris  (Po.  568). 

Intervening  adverbs  need  not  detain  us  long.  Quidem  and 
quoque  have  already  been  classed  as  enclitics  (p.  160).  Vero 
(Al.  285  and  Mo.  15),  adeo  (As.  763  and  Mo.  280),  profecto 
(Ml.  1264),  usquam  (Mr.  35),  umquam  (Mn.  594),  and  magis 
(S.  485)  need  little  comment.  More  worthy  of  note  are  postremo 
(Po.  1369),  minus  (B.  672),  inde  (Ps.  333),  hodie  (Pe.  474  and 
S.  459),  cito  (B.  202),  mmc  (R.  533),  semper  (Tu.  388),  palam 
(Tu.  819),  and  adaequest  (Cp.  999). 

Conjunctions  intervene  as  follows:  lit  (Am.  14,  Mr.  112,  Mo. 
811,  Po.  5,  15,  575),*^  si  {Ah.  947,  Cp.  202,  Tu.  305),  autem 
(Pe.  695),  ergo  (Po.  1051). 


41  A  limiting  genitive  frequently  intervenes  in  prose;  e.g.,  summa 
oratoris  eloquentia. 

4^  Because  of  its  parenthetical  nature,  an  intervening  vocative  inter- 
rupts the  thought  only  slightly. 

43  Note  that  a  form  of  fides  begins  and  ends  this  line. 

**  Mores  morosi  malos  (Po.  379)  has  already  been  discussed  under  cases 
of  adnominal  word-play. 

*■>  Alliteration,  interlocked  order  and  metrical  convenience  are  factors 
to  be  noted  in  Al.  66  and  462.  For  other  cases  of  modis  at  the  verse-end 
cf.  above  Am.  119,  etc.  (p.  161). 

40  Doubtless  the  juxtaposition  of  opulento  and  pauper  is  intentional. 

47  The  word  preceding  the  intervening  ut  always  ends  in  an  elided 
vowel,  except  in  Mr.  112. 


1911]  Keep. — The  Separated  Adjective  in  Plautus.  163 


V.     MISCELLANEOUS  SEPARATIONS. 

There  remain  yet  untreated  a  large  class  of  examples  in  which 
the  adjective,  whether  it  precedes  or  follows  the  noun,  is  separ- 
ated from  the  latter  by  two  or  more  intervening  words.  Fre- 
quently the  adjective  acquires  emphasis  by  preceding.  The 
instances  in  which  honus  assumes  this  position  are  well  worth 
quoting : 

Et  uti  bonis  vos  vostrosque  omnis  nuntiis 

Me  adficere  voltis,      (Am.  8)*8 

Hocine  boni  esse  officium  servi  existumas,     (Mo.  27) 

Bono  med  esse  ingenio  ornatam  quam  auro  multo  mavolo.      (Po.  301) 

Bonam  dedistis  mlhi  operam. — It  ad  me  lucrum.      (Po.  683) 

Bonam  dedistis,  advocati,  operam  mihi.      (Po.  806) 

Bonamst  quod  habeas  gratiam  merito  mihi,     (R.  516) 

Bonis  esse  oportet  dentibus  lenam  probam:      (Tu.  224) 

Other  adjectives  so  situated  with  reference  to  the  substantive 
are  omnis  (Am.  122,  B.  373,  Mr.  920,  Ml.  662,  R.  500,  Tu.  876), 
multus  (Am.  190,"^  Cp.  326,  554,  Mo.  589,  Po.  208,  687,  R.  400, 
S.  87,  Tr.  380),  niillus  (Am.  385,  Cp.  518,  Ci.  653,  Mo.  409,  836, 
839),  ullus  (As.  775,  Po.  450),  magnus  (As.  143,  Mn.  201,  Ml.  228, 
Tu.  702),  alter  (Am.  153,  B.  719),  alius  (As.  204,  236,  Tr.  356, 
Tu.  936),  maxumus  (Al.  485,  Mo.  899),  verus  (Cp.  610,  R.  1101), 
paucus  (Cp.  1033,  Ps.  972).  For  various  other  adjectives  in  this 
positon  cf.  Al.  622,  767,  B.  552,  911,  Cp.  258,  897,  Ca.  9,  639, 
Cu.  470,  Mn.  167,^"  802,  Mr.  507,  Mo.  195,  357,  Pe.  780,  Po.  602, 
Ps.  752,  R.  406,  Tr.  764,  Tu.  767,  782.  In  many  of  the  cases  of 
separation  just  mentioned  there  are  extenuating  circumstances : 
for  example,  at  least  one  of  the  intervening  words  is  often  an 
enclitic,  as  Bono  med  esse  ingenio  (Po.  301).  Sometimes  we 
have  a  stereotyped  formula,  as  Multa  tibi  dei  dent  bona  (Po.  208, 
687). 

There  yet  remain  to  be  considered  only  a  few  cases  in  which 


48  Note  that  Am.  9  ends  with  the  word  nuntiem.     Cf.  Al.  621-22  for  a 
very  similar  instance. 

40  It  is  possible  that  in  Am.   190   there  is  a  reminiscence  of   Homer, 
Iliad  I,  2: 

ovKofi^vriVj  fi  fivpi'  ' AxaioTs  AXye  edrjKev. 

50  Note  that  in  Mn.  167  and  Tu.  767  the  adjective  and  its  noun  stand 
respectively    at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  and  after  the  diaeresis. 


164  University  of  California  Publications  in  Classical  Philology.      [Vol.  2 

the  adjective  is  in  the  interior  of  the  verse,  and  is  separated  from 
its  preceding  substantive  by  two  or  more  intervening  words. 
Very  frequently  an  adjective  in  this  position  is  decidedly  amplify- 
ing, as  will  be  seen  in  the  following : 

Eos  ego  hodie  omnis  contruncabo  duobus  solis  Ictibus.     (B.  975) 
Ea  nunc  perierunt  omnia. — Oh,  Neptune  lepide,  salve:      (R.  358) 
Di  ilium  infelicent  omnes  qui  post  hunc  diem     (Po.  449) 
Inde  sum  oriundus. — Di  dent  tibi  omnes  quae  velis.     (Po.  1055  ) 
Rem  eloeuta  sum  tibi  omnem:  sequere  hac  me.  Selenium,     (Ci.  631) 
Rem  tibi  sum  elocutus  omnem,  Chaeribule,  atque  admodimi.     (E.  104) 
Et  aiirum  et  argentum  fuit  lenonis  omne  ibidem.      (R.  396) 
Bona  sua  med  habiturum  omnia. — Ausculto  lubens.     (Tu.  400) 

For  other  adjectives  in  this  position  cf.  Am.  959,  As.  50,  598, 
Ca.  710,  Ci.  103,  Mr.  139,  292,  Ml.  313,  Mo.  841,  Pe.  35,  Ps.  773, 
R.  352,  1109,  1133,  1281,  1421.  It  will  be  noticed  that  there,  too, 
one  of  the  intervening  words  is  often  an  enclitic.  Also  appar- 
ently in  some  cases  we  have  stereotyped  phrases. 

In  conclusion  we  may  say  that  many  cases  of  separation  are 
due  to  conscious  art.  Sometimes  the  adjective  and  substantive 
occupy  the  opposite  extremities  of  the  same  verse ;  sometimes  one 
immediately  precedes  the  principal  caesura  or  diaeresis,  and  the 
other  is  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  Not  a  few  conscious  art- 
separations  are  largely  due  to  adnominal  word-play  and  allitera- 
tion. Long  adjectives  and  nouns,  metrically  convenient,  many 
also  of  cretic,  pyrrhic,  and  iambic  measurement,  display  a  very 
decided  tendency  to  drift  to  the  end  of  the  verse.  This  ten- 
dency is  responsible  for  no  small  number  of  separations. 
Enclitic  words,  especially  certain  pronominal  words,  mono- 
syllabic forms  of  the  verb  sum,  and  a  few  particles,  intervene  verj' 
frequently.  Often  the  separated  adjective  precedes  because  it 
demands  emphasis;  often  it  follows  because  it  is  amplifying. 
We  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  a  combination  of  two  or 
more  of  the  above  mentioned  factors  is  frequently  at  work  pro- 
ducing the  separation.  A  verb  seems  to  slip  in  very  easily  and 
naturally  between  the  adjective  and  its  noun,  while  except  for 
some  good  reason,  generally  patent  even  to  the  modern  reader, 
other  single  words  intervene  relatively  infrequently. 

Transmitted  April  7,  1911. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFOIINIA  PUBLIC ATIONS— (Continued) 

EGYPTIAN  AECHAEOLOGY.     (Quarto.) 

Vol.  1.    The  Hearst  Medical  Papyrus.    Hieratic  Text  in  17  facsioiile  plates  in  collotype, 

with  Introduction  and  Vocabulary,  "by  George  A.  Reisner.    48  pages.    1905    25  marks 
Vol.  2.    The  Early  Dynastic  Cemeteries  of  Naga-ed-D§r,  Part  I,  by  G.  A.  Eeisner.    172 

pages,  80  plates,  211  text-figures.    1908  75  marks 

Vol.  3.    The  Early  Dynastic  Cemeteries  at  Naga-ed-DSr,  Part  II,  by  A.  C.  Mace,    xi  + 

88  pages,  with  60  plates  and  123  text-figures.    1909 50  marks 

For  sale  by  J.  C.  Hinrichs  Verlag,  Leipzig,  Germany.  Copies  for  exchange  may  be 
obtained  from  the  University  Press,  Berkeley. 

SEMITIC  PHILOLOGY.— Williani  Popper,  Editor. 
Vol.  1.    1907-.     (In  progress.) 

1.  The  Supposed  Hebraisms  in  the  Grammar  of  Biblical  Aramaic,  by 

Herbert  Harry  Powell.    Pp.  1-55.    February,  1907 „ „      .75 

Vol.  2.    1909— (In  progress.) 

1.  Ibn  Taghri  Birdi:  An-Nujam  az-Zahira  fi  Mullik  Misr  wal-B:ahlra  (No. 

1  of  Vol.  2,  part  2).    Edited  by  William  Popper.     Pp.  1-128.    Sep- 
tember, 1909  - - 1.50 

2.  Idem  (No.  2  of  Vol.  2,  part  2).    Pp.  129-297.    October,  1910  1.50 

The  publication  of  this  text  will  be  continued.    European  orders  for  the  parts  of  this 

volume  as  published  may  be  sent  to  Late  E.  J.  Brill,  Ltd.,  Leiden. 

MODERN  PHILOLOGY.— Charles  M.  Gayley,  Lucien  Foulet,  and  Hugo  K.  Schilling,  Edi- 
tors.   Price  per  volume  $2.50. 

Vol.  1.    1.  Der  Junge  Goethe  und  das  Publikum,  by  W.  E.  E.  Finger.    Pp.  1-67. 

May,  1909 50 

2.  Studies  in  the  Marvellous,  by  Benjamin  P.  Kurtz.    Pp.  69-244.    March 

17,  1910  $2.00 

3.  Introduction  to  the  Philosophy  of  Art,  by  Arthur  Weiss.    Pp.  245-302. 

January  12,  1910  50 

4.  The  Old  English  Christian  Epic,  by  George  A.  Smithson.    Pp.  303-400. 

September  30,  1910 _ .- 1.00 

Vol,  2.    1.  Wilhelm  Busch  als  Dichter,  KUnstler,  Psychologe,  imd  Philosoph,  von 

Fritz  Winther.    Pp.  1-79.    September  26,  1910 75 

MEMOIRS  OF  THE  UNIVEES];TY  OP  CALIFORNIA  (Quarto). 

Vol.  1.    No.  1.  Triassic  Ichthyosauria,  with  special  reference   to  the  American 
Forms.    By  John  C.  Merriam.    Pages  1-196,  plates  1-18,  154  text 

figures.    September,  1908  « ^3.00 

Vol.  2.    The  Silva  of  California,  by  Willis  Linn  Jepson.     480  pages,  85  plates, 

3  maps.     December,  1910 9.00 

Other  series  in  Classical  Philology,  Economics,  Education,  Egyptian  Archaeology,  Engi- 
neering, Entomology,  Graeco-Roman  Archaeology,  Mathematics,  Psychology,  Semitic  Phil- 
ology, Modern  Philology. 

AMERICAN  ARCHAEOLOGY  AND  ETHNOLOGY.— Alfred  L.  Kroeber,  Editor.  Price  per 
volume  $3.50  (Volume  1,  $4.25).  Volumes  1-8  completed.  Volumes  9  and  10  in 
progress. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  CHRONICLE.— An  official  record  of  University  life, 
issued  quarterly,  edited  by  a  committ-ee  of  the  faculty.  Price,  $1.00  per 
year.    Current  volume  No.  XIII. 

Address  all  orders,  or  requests  for  information  concerning  the  above  publications  to 
The  University  Press,  Berkeley,  California. 

European  agent  for  the  series  in  American  Archaeology  and  Ethnology,  Classical  Phil- 
ology, Education,  Modern  Philology,  Philosophy,  and  Semitic  Philology,  Otto  Harrassowltz, 
Leipzig.  For  the  Memoirs,  and  the  series  in  Botany,  Geology,  Pathology,  Physiology, 
Zoology  and  also  American  Archaeology  and  Ethnology,  B.  Friedlander  &  Sohn,  Berlin. 


244554 


